Thrust is a crutch and it needs to go.

Games Halo 5: Guardians
142

> 2535407994360276;141:
> > 2533274901833242;136:
> > > 2535407994360276;135:
> > > > 2533274901833242;130:
> > > > > 2535407994360276;129:
> > > > > It really adds the heat to a gunfight. Poses a challenge to all. It NEEDS to stay.
> > > >
> > > > For every time it “adds the heat” to a gun fight it also stops one dead cold by someone thrusting behind cover and escaping.
> > >
> > > That’s also the heat. You never know, they can be coming from all over. You really never know
> >
> > Player preference I guess. I don’t like that you “never really know.” Predicting player movement was a huge part of the classic Halos. I’m not a fan of the randomness present in H5 that is caused by the movement mechanics and map design.
>
> I personally love randomness. I love a good challenge when I see one.

For me the challenge IS in predicting player movement. Juking out and getting a reversal on a player who jumps out from behind a corner and starts shooting you is one skill. Doming him with the sniper right as he comes around the corner because he knew he’d be there based on his partner’s location, your partner’s location, and the general flow of the map is a whole different skill.

143

> 2533274901833242;142:
> > 2535407994360276;141:
> > > 2533274901833242;136:
> > > > 2535407994360276;135:
> > > > > 2533274901833242;130:
> > > > > > 2535407994360276;129:
> > > > > > It really adds the heat to a gunfight. Poses a challenge to all. It NEEDS to stay.
> > > > >
> > > > > For every time it “adds the heat” to a gun fight it also stops one dead cold by someone thrusting behind cover and escaping.
> > > >
> > > > That’s also the heat. You never know, they can be coming from all over. You really never know
> > >
> > > Player preference I guess. I don’t like that you “never really know.” Predicting player movement was a huge part of the classic Halos. I’m not a fan of the randomness present in H5 that is caused by the movement mechanics and map design.
> >
> > I personally love randomness. I love a good challenge when I see one.
>
> For me the challenge IS in predicting player movement. Juking out and getting a reversal on a player who jumps out from behind a corner and starts shooting you is one skill. Doming him with the sniper right as he comes around the corner because he knew he’d be there based on his partner’s location, your partner’s location, and the general flow of the map is a whole different skill.

Quite difficult, but not impossible. Mastering skills of prediction is one thing, but I love the step up.

144

I feel like thrust keeps the pace going which I like and stuff like avoiding a rocket using your thrust feels invigorating :slight_smile: I can agree it feels awkward to go back to older halo’s without the Spartan abilities but its something you gotta deal with.

145

After reading a whole lot of arguments for each side of this post, it seems to me that many arguing in favor of removing thrust are simply not great at thrusting during a gun fight yet.

Thrust is literally the definition of a great game mechanic. Easy to learn, and hard to master.

Just practice thrusting, jump thrusting, and slide thrusting, and you’ll realize it’s a solid mechanic, and not a crutch.

146

> 2535407994360276;143:
> > 2533274901833242;142:
> > > 2535407994360276;141:
> > > > 2533274901833242;136:
> > > > > 2535407994360276;135:
> > > > > > 2533274901833242;130:
> > > > > > > 2535407994360276;129:
> > > > > > > It really adds the heat to a gunfight. Poses a challenge to all. It NEEDS to stay.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For every time it “adds the heat” to a gun fight it also stops one dead cold by someone thrusting behind cover and escaping.
> > > > >
> > > > > That’s also the heat. You never know, they can be coming from all over. You really never know
> > > >
> > > > Player preference I guess. I don’t like that you “never really know.” Predicting player movement was a huge part of the classic Halos. I’m not a fan of the randomness present in H5 that is caused by the movement mechanics and map design.
> > >
> > > I personally love randomness. I love a good challenge when I see one.
> >
> > For me the challenge IS in predicting player movement. Juking out and getting a reversal on a player who jumps out from behind a corner and starts shooting you is one skill. Doming him with the sniper right as he comes around the corner because he knew he’d be there based on his partner’s location, your partner’s location, and the general flow of the map is a whole different skill.
>
> Quite difficult, but not impossible. Mastering skills of prediction is one thing, but I love the step up.

*step down FTFY Haha for real though I disagree with you. You can maintain a high shooting skill gap by having high strafe acceleration and guns with very little to no aim assist and bullet magnetism while still maintaining a movement system and map design that allow for more predictable player movement and engagements. Randomness is generally not a good thing in competitive games.

147

> 2533274901833242;146:
> *step down FTFY Haha for real though I disagree with you. You can maintain a high shooting skill gap by having high strafe acceleration and guns with very little to no aim assist and bullet magnetism while still maintaining a movement system and map design that allow for more predictable player movement and engagements. Randomness is generally not a good thing in competitive games.

I find it strange how you mentally separate between “randomness”, which you use to refer to movement you don’t like, and “predictable movement”, which you use to refer to movement you do like. You do realize that there’s no line to be drawn here? Predictability and randomness are not mutually exclusive, and in fact, the experience you so enjoy crucially relies on the existence of randomness. For if player movement was completely predictable, we’d all be moving on a predetermined path at a steady pace, and there’d be no challenge at all in predicting player movement. Randomness in player movement is crucial for competitive play.

The fact that you can’t predict with 100% certainty where another player will be at all times necessarily means that there exists an element of randomness in the player’s location. Your prediction, after all, is just that, a prediction, a belief that a player will be more likely to be found in one place than another. The skillin predicting other players is removing as much of the uncertainty about the location of opponents as you can by inferring more probably movement patterns from their behavior. But ultimately, there is still randomness at play, you will never know for certain where the opponent will be until you check.

The challenge you describe doesn’t come completely from the fact that you can predict other players, nor from the fact that there’s uncertainty in the movements of other players, but from the fact that by learning how players move, you can decrease this uncertainty. “More predictable” isn’t necessarily better for competitive play, as shown by the extreme example in the first paragraph. What matters is how much the accuracy of predictions made by an experienced player differs from those made by a novice. If the game is too predictable, then it will be too easy for the novice to make predictions as good as the experienced player. If the game is too unpredictable, then there will be too many possibilities, and the experienced player can’t make predictions that are significantly more accurate than those of the novice. Designing a game with good level of predictability is finding an optimal level of predictability between these two extremes.

What you’re essentially asserting, whether you realize it or not, is that the amount of randomness that exists in player movement without Thruster Pack is more optimal than the amount of randomness that exists with it. However, I fail to see why this should be the case.

148

> 2614366390849210;145:
> After reading a whole lot of arguments for each side of this post, it seems to me that many arguing in favor of removing thrust are simply not great at thrusting during a gun fight yet.
>
> Thrust is literally the definition of a great game mechanic. Easy to learn, and hard to master.
>
> Just practice thrusting, jump thrusting, and slide thrusting, and you’ll realize it’s a solid mechanic, and not a crutch.

Where in these posts are you drawing that from? Sounds pretty misleading.

149

> 2533274825830455;147:
> > 2533274901833242;146:
> > *step down FTFY Haha for real though I disagree with you. You can maintain a high shooting skill gap by having high strafe acceleration and guns with very little to no aim assist and bullet magnetism while still maintaining a movement system and map design that allow for more predictable player movement and engagements. Randomness is generally not a good thing in competitive games.
>
> I find it strange how you mentally separate between “randomness”, which you use to refer to movement you don’t like, and “predictable movement”, which you use to refer to movement you do like. You do realize that there’s no line to be drawn here? Predictability and randomness are not mutually exclusive, and in fact, the experience you so enjoy crucially relies on the existence of randomness. For if player movement was completely predictable, we’d all be moving on a predetermined path at a steady pace, and there’d be no challenge at all in predicting player movement. Randomness in player movement is crucial for competitive play.
>
> The fact that you can’t predict with 100% certainty where another player will be at all times necessarily means that there exists an element of randomness in the player’s location. Your prediction, after all, is just that, a prediction, a belief that a player will be more likely to be found in one place than another. The skillin predicting other players is removing as much of the uncertainty about the location of opponents as you can by inferring more probably movement patterns from their behavior. But ultimately, there is still randomness at play, you will never know for certain where the opponent will be until you check.
>
> The challenge you describe doesn’t come completely from the fact that you can predict other players, nor from the fact that there’s uncertainty in the movements of other players, but from the fact that by learning how players move, you can decrease this uncertainty. “More predictable” isn’t necessarily better for competitive play, as shown by the extreme example in the first paragraph. What matters is how much the accuracy of predictions made by an experienced player differs from those made by a novice. If the game is too predictable, then it will be too easy for the novice to make predictions as good as the experienced player. If the game is too unpredictable, then there will be too many possibilities, and the experienced player can’t make predictions that are significantly more accurate than those of the novice. Designing a game with good level of predictability is finding an optimal level of predictability between these two extremes.
>
> What you’re essentially asserting, whether you realize it or not, is that the amount of randomness that exists in player movement without Thruster Pack is more optimal than the amount of randomness that exists with it. However, I fail to see why this should be the case.

I know that a certain level of randomness is important. The fact that I’m talking about player predction as a skill implies some randomness otherwise there would be no need for predicting anything. Perhaps I should’ve been more clear with my words. Think of chess as an example. There are limited pieces with a set pattern of moves available to them. This limited set of rules makes for an unimaginable amount of plays but is still predictable and a large part of the skill in chess is predicting what your opponent is going to do. Imagine if any piece could now move in any direction. Player prediction would go right out the window. I agree that balance is key but Halo 5 is too much on the random side. Thruster itself doesn’t directly add to this when used as just a strafing tool but given how large a distance it covers combined with things like sprint and clamber it has a huge impact on map movement. A great example is the difference between playing Prisoner in CE and playing it in the H5 classic playlist. Prisoner in CE is highly predictable and high level players will kill low level players left and right because they know where they are going to go before they even do but when high level players play against each other there is plenty enough randomness in the game to make it a nail biting experience. Prisoner in H5 has players flying all around the map from all directions and that player prediction skill gap between high level and low level players shrinks dramatically.

150

> 2533274825830455;140:
> > 2533274968707582;131:
> >
>
> And does it have more applications and Thruster Pack?
>
> I always feel really bad about the fact that in order to defend why a mechanic shouldn’t be in a game, you need to go so far as to argue that it’s detrimental to gameplay. But the thing is, a mechanic doesn’t need to be just not detrimental to be worth implementing. It needs to add a substantial amount of new tactics, it needs to be more than just a one-trick pony. As I’ve explained above, I don’t think Thruster Pack does that. I don’t think it does that even if you have the imagination to see it as more than just a strafing aid. And so I question whether a wall jump, an ability that’s even more limited in its applicability, can add more?
>
> With that said, I think a wall jump could be meaningful enough if you consider it as an extension of normal jumping, rather than a replacement for Thruster Pack. Some ground rules to make it interesting should be that there is no artificial delay between wall jumps, that it doesn’t impede the player’s ability to execute other actions, that you need to have momentum perpendicular to the wall in order to wall jump (no wall jumps by standing next to a wall), that it would have to be very sensitive to timing and placement to maintain some skill, that momentum parallel to the wall should be conserved (no magical changes in direction), and that it should provide a small amount of additional vertical momentum. With these attributes, you can actually start designing paths on maps that would elevate it from a gimmick to a varied movement ability.
>
> In other words, I see potential in a wall jump mechanic, but I think viewing it as a more limited replacement to Thruster Pack is destining it to be a gimmick that adds barely any depth. If such a mechanic was ever implemented, it should rather be viewed as an extension of the ability to jump. It also follows from this that I don’t see this as ruling out or acting as a replacement for other short horizontal boost abilities like Thruster Pack or Evade, but for the reason you mentioned—that a wall jump is inherently more restricted—such abilities are bound to give players more freedom and be more difficult to control (for the map designer) than a wall jump.

You need to teach me how to quote in the manner that you just did. I cannot handle Waypoint’s system of needing to include every quote from prior posts.

Let’s be clear: Halo doesn’t necessarily require any more movement implemented into the game besides strafing, jumping, and crouching. It is rare for such a necessity to pop up within an established franchise unless the mechanics themselves worked poorly due to lack of depth. Once we reach the sweet spot of strafe acceleration alongside the proper balance of bullet magnetism (which 343 is butchering right now), the skill gap in out-strafing an opponent will be greatly sufficient to sustain the majority of the competitive fan base. In that context, I completely comprehend your fear of this wall-kick feature being nothing more than a gimmick in your view.

That being said, I don’t believe that new movement features need to add so much depth and strategy in the context of whatever role they’re playing to be considered for being implemented. That is already established by the basic movements I’ve already mentioned as the foundation for halo. Halo’s classic movement will only ever need to be revised through subtle additions to movement that enhance and don’t replace the foundation that is already set. If anything, I’d rather add in mechanics that make little difference in the general meta or strategy in a game’s long-term lifespan (as long as they’re beneficial) than mechanics that overstep their boundaries in implementation (like the thrust’s minimal restriction and maximum versatility in usage besides a cooldown) or by the very nature of their functions, like clamber and sprint. That is the context behind the idea of wall-kick as a movement ability: a mechanic that tries to compliment the given features of classic movement, adding more possibilities to gunfights while providing little benefit in actual map traversal.

If there are possibilities for new gameplay additions that don’t try to fundamentally revise the movement and strafing of classic halo (which thrust seemingly fails at), I don’t see why we can’t at least test these ideas and attempt to freshen up the series (which we may never reach that point because of 343).

151

> 2533274901833242;118:
> > 2533274916698000;111:
> > > 2533274901833242;107:
> > > > 2533274916698000;51:
> > > >
> >
> > Now, as for earlier, sure, you can list lazily to the left or right with the left analogue stick. Congrats. Really. Congratulations. You could have simply said increased movement speed, but I suppose that would have been too accurate for you. Projectile weapons? Yeah, like the Brng? No. Bullet magnetism? unrelated, but yes. Definitely lower, especially on the sniper rifles.
> >
> > Perhaps remove thrusters from a “pro” playlist as well as the other armor abilities, however I find it very odd that “pros” couldn’t deal with sporadic movement. Though of course I don’t particularly care either way since I only use thrusters for map movement, since it usually opens you up for a few easy shots as long as the person has decent aim. But if the majority think it best that it make its depart, I won’t particularly care.
> >
> > However, people like you should consider the implications of such requests. Many great custom games rely on the thrust mechanic and while you don’t particularly care for it, others do. What gameplay is better? The one the person prefers. It is entirely subjective. You seem of the mind that your preferred gameplay is the best gameplay, which can neither be proven nor disproven with absolute certainty. Should you wish to have your “No thruster Halo” you are free to do so currently in custom games. I’m certain there are a plethora of persons willing to join you, and it isn’t as though there are a lack of great custom maps for you to play on. Many that are better then those in the matchmaking scene, to be certain.
> >
> > Of course changes will be made to the next Halo’s gameplay, I’m hoping it takes on more of the classic aspects. Personally I would like to have playable elites, duel wielding and have certain abilities disappear. Mind you, I am certain people would disagree with some, if not all of that. And they aren’t entirely wrong.
>
> See. You could’ve just posted something like this the first time like a decent human being instead of wasting time making internet troll posts.

And you could’ve asked nicely.

152

> 2533274825830455;147:
> > 2533274901833242;146:
> > *step down FTFY Haha for real though I disagree with you. You can maintain a high shooting skill gap by having high strafe acceleration and guns with very little to no aim assist and bullet magnetism while still maintaining a movement system and map design that allow for more predictable player movement and engagements. Randomness is generally not a good thing in competitive games.
>
> I find it strange how you mentally separate between “randomness”, which you use to refer to movement you don’t like, and “predictable movement”, which you use to refer to movement you do like. You do realize that there’s no line to be drawn here? Predictability and randomness are not mutually exclusive, and in fact, the experience you so enjoy crucially relies on the existence of randomness. For if player movement was completely predictable, we’d all be moving on a predetermined path at a steady pace, and there’d be no challenge at all in predicting player movement. Randomness in player movement is crucial for competitive play.
>
> The fact that you can’t predict with 100% certainty where another player will be at all times necessarily means that there exists an element of randomness in the player’s location. Your prediction, after all, is just that, a prediction, a belief that a player will be more likely to be found in one place than another. The skillin predicting other players is removing as much of the uncertainty about the location of opponents as you can by inferring more probably movement patterns from their behavior. But ultimately, there is still randomness at play, you will never know for certain where the opponent will be until you check.
>
> The challenge you describe doesn’t come completely from the fact that you can predict other players, nor from the fact that there’s uncertainty in the movements of other players, but from the fact that by learning how players move, you can decrease this uncertainty. “More predictable” isn’t necessarily better for competitive play, as shown by the extreme example in the first paragraph. What matters is how much the accuracy of predictions made by an experienced player differs from those made by a novice. If the game is too predictable, then it will be too easy for the novice to make predictions as good as the experienced player. If the game is too unpredictable, then there will be too many possibilities, and the experienced player can’t make predictions that are significantly more accurate than those of the novice. Designing a game with good level of predictability is finding an optimal level of predictability between these two extremes.
>
> What you’re essentially asserting, whether you realize it or not, is that the amount of randomness that exists in player movement without Thruster Pack is more optimal than the amount of randomness that exists with it. However, I fail to see why this should be the case.

Thanks, Moniter

153

> 2533274968707582;150:
> You need to teach me how to quote in the manner that you just did. I cannot handle Waypoint’s system of needing to include every quote from prior posts.

Just click the “[/]” symbol on the top right corner of the post box to get to source code view, and modify the quote tags at will.

> 2533274968707582;150:
> That being said, I don’t believe that new movement features need to add so much depth and strategy in the context of whatever role they’re playing to be considered for being implemented. That is already established by the basic movements I’ve already mentioned as the foundation for halo. Halo’s classic movement will only ever need to be revised through subtle additions to movement that enhance and don’t replace the foundation that is already set. If anything, I’d rather add in mechanics that make little difference in the general meta or strategy in a game’s long-term lifespan (as long as they’re beneficial) than mechanics that overstep their boundaries in implementation (like the thrust’s minimal restriction and maximum versatility in usage besides a cooldown) or by the very nature of their functions, like clamber and sprint.

I can’t agree with this point of view. As far as I’m concerned, good game design is to find the depth in simplicity, that is, to create as much depth from as few mechanics as possible. Niche mechanics with a single purpose go against this philosophy and are just lazy design. I don’t see the point of a mechanic from which high level players will deplete all it has to offer in the first week.

> 2533274968707582;150:
> That is the context behind the idea of wall-kick as a movement ability: a mechanic that tries to compliment the given features of classic movement, adding more possibilities to gunfights while providing little benefit in actual map traversal.
>
> If there are possibilities for new gameplay additions that don’t try to fundamentally revise the movement and strafing of classic halo (which thrust seemingly fails at), I don’t see why we can’t at least test these ideas and attempt to freshen up the series (which we may never reach that point because of 343).

But why? Why are you afraid of making traversal more interesting? If this is just a question about Halo’s identity, then asking others to keep an open mind would seem a bit hypocritical from you. Why should we not give players a deeper movement system if that is at all possible? And note that by “deeper” I mean that there are many things to learn to actually get mileage out of it, not to anything like Halo 5’s “everyone gets to fly everywhere with Thruster Pack and Clamber”.

154

> 2533274825830455;153:
> > 2533274968707582;150:
> > You need to teach me how to quote in the manner that you just did. I cannot handle Waypoint’s system of needing to include every quote from prior posts.
>
> Just click the “[/]” symbol on the top right corner of the post box to get to source code view, and modify the quote tags at will.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274968707582;150:
> > That being said, I don’t believe that new movement features need to add so much depth and strategy in the context of whatever role they’re playing to be considered for being implemented. That is already established by the basic movements I’ve already mentioned as the foundation for halo. Halo’s classic movement will only ever need to be revised through subtle additions to movement that enhance and don’t replace the foundation that is already set. If anything, I’d rather add in mechanics that make little difference in the general meta or strategy in a game’s long-term lifespan (as long as they’re beneficial) than mechanics that overstep their boundaries in implementation (like the thrust’s minimal restriction and maximum versatility in usage besides a cooldown) or by the very nature of their functions, like clamber and sprint.
>
> I can’t agree with this point of view. As far as I’m concerned, good game design is to find the depth in simplicity, that is, to create as much depth from as few mechanics as possible. Niche mechanics with a single purpose go against this philosophy and are just lazy design. I don’t see the point of a mechanic from which high level players will deplete all it has to offer in the first week.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274968707582;150:
> > That is the context behind the idea of wall-kick as a movement ability: a mechanic that tries to compliment the given features of classic movement, adding more possibilities to gunfights while providing little benefit in actual map traversal.
> >
> > If there are possibilities for new gameplay additions that don’t try to fundamentally revise the movement and strafing of classic halo (which thrust seemingly fails at), I don’t see why we can’t at least test these ideas and attempt to freshen up the series (which we may never reach that point because of 343).
>
> But why? Why are you afraid of making traversal more interesting? If this is just a question about Halo’s identity, then asking others to keep an open mind would seem a bit hypocritical from you. Why should we not give players a deeper movement system if that is at all possible? And note that by “deeper” I mean that there are many things to learn to actually get mileage out of it, not to anything like Halo 5’s “everyone gets to fly everywhere with Thruster Pack and Clamber”.

If I had said the underlined part I would’ve expected a 2 page response from you on how that was a total exaggeration and that there are still limits on where players can go in Halo 5.

155

> 2533274901833242;154:
> If I had said the underlined part I would’ve expected a 2 page response from you on how that was a total exaggeration and that there are still limits on where players can go in Halo 5.

I mean, of course there are. The hyperbole was completely intentional, and I don’t think I’ve taken any intentional hyperbole from you too literally. I at least hope I’m good enough at reading comprehension to not make that mistake.

156

> 2533274804424245;139:
> > 2533274834537210;132:
> > I disagree. Thrust is an instantaneous jolt in whatever direction you choose. No one can accurately predict that sudden of a movement, so unless they happen to be lucky they will always be thrown off for a fraction of a second. A strafe can go both ways. Good players can mix up their movement to be hard to track and even harder to predict, whereas lesser skilled players will often use a very basic or no strafe at all. Base movement should be of paramount importance.
>
> The bolded statement is obviously false. I’ve seen pros headshot one-shot players who were in mid-thrust–and pretty consistently, it just requires a very fast adjustment to your aim that you can’t manage on a low sens and without a lot of practice (to establish the muscle memory). I’ve also seen pros get the same kind of treatment from high-rank players in matchmaking.
>
> When a player starts moving to one side in a traditional strafe pattern, you immediately begin adjusting your aim to catch him, right? That happens in an instant as well, so fast that you don’t even have time to think about it–you just react. It’s the same thing when someone thrusts in the middle of a gunfight. Like I said to tsassi: See enemy move left, move crosshair left. The only difference is, with thrust in the picture, you have to distinguish that they’re thrusting in that direction instead of strafing (and it’s very easy to tell the two apart because, for one, they look completely different) and then you’ll have to move your crosshair much more quickly in that direction to catch them before they can begin shooting you again.

What you are talking about here is reacting, not predicting. No one can predict a movement so lightning fast with consistent results. I’d wager that even a supercomputer would have trouble predicting it as well. The player can press that button at any moment in the fight, it’s simply random. You can, however, react once the movement has occurred. The pros snapping their reticle after their opponent thrusts is just them reacting quickly to the thrust. That is what they are conditioned to do. It is a skill.

What I want to make clear is that strafing is only as effective as the player performing it. Strafing can still be very hard to predict, but that is entirely dependent on the mind behind it. That is a good thing. Better players are harder to predict, widening the ever so shrinking skill gap of Halo.

157

Thrust isn’t at bad as spartan charge though I do think it needs to be tweaked.Reduce the distance so it’s more for strafing, less for movement,and allow us to shoot during it.Maybe remove the cooldown as well.My problem with thrust is how much they upped the magnetism for everything -except the pistol- to deal with thrust,and upped grenade radius which are both caused by how far you can thrust.Thrust should be an additive to your strafe not a necessity.

158

> 2533274834537210;156:
> > 2533274804424245;139:
> > > 2533274834537210;132:
> > > I disagree. Thrust is an instantaneous jolt in whatever direction you choose. No one can accurately predict that sudden of a movement, so unless they happen to be lucky they will always be thrown off for a fraction of a second. A strafe can go both ways. Good players can mix up their movement to be hard to track and even harder to predict, whereas lesser skilled players will often use a very basic or no strafe at all. Base movement should be of paramount importance.
> >
> > The bolded statement is obviously false. I’ve seen pros headshot one-shot players who were in mid-thrust–and pretty consistently, it just requires a very fast adjustment to your aim that you can’t manage on a low sens and without a lot of practice (to establish the muscle memory). I’ve also seen pros get the same kind of treatment from high-rank players in matchmaking.
> >
> > When a player starts moving to one side in a traditional strafe pattern, you immediately begin adjusting your aim to catch him, right? That happens in an instant as well, so fast that you don’t even have time to think about it–you just react. It’s the same thing when someone thrusts in the middle of a gunfight. Like I said to tsassi: See enemy move left, move crosshair left. The only difference is, with thrust in the picture, you have to distinguish that they’re thrusting in that direction instead of strafing (and it’s very easy to tell the two apart because, for one, they look completely different) and then you’ll have to move your crosshair much more quickly in that direction to catch them before they can begin shooting you again.
>
> What you are talking about here is reacting, not predicting. No one can predict a movement so lightning fast with consistent results. I’d wager that even a supercomputer would have trouble predicting it as well. The player can press that button at any moment in the fight, it’s simply random. You can, however, react once the movement has occurred. The pros snapping their reticle after their opponent thrusts is just them reacting quickly to the thrust. That is what they are conditioned to do. It is a skill.
>
> What I want to make clear is that strafing is only as effective as the player performing it. Strafing can still be very hard to predict, but that is entirely dependent on the mind behind it. That is a good thing. Better players are harder to predict, widening the ever so shrinking skill gap of Halo.

When a player first starts his traditional strafe sequence, what direction is he going to move first? Who knows, it’s unpredictable, it’s random–so you have to react to his first move and try to hit him, anyway, right? Next move in the strafe pattern? What’s it gonna be? Still unpredictable, right? After that, maybe one can begin to see a pattern form in his strafe. But how can you know what someone’s going to do at the start of their strafe sequence? Have you gone up against people who do the exact same moves to start their strafe sequences every single time? Because, in my opinion, that would be someone who has a poor strafe.

159

> 2533274804424245;158:
> When a player first starts his traditional strafe sequence, what direction is he going to move first? Who knows, it’s unpredictable, it’s random–so you have to react to his first move and try to hit him, anyway, right? Next move in the strafe pattern? What’s it gonna be? Still unpredictable, right? After that, maybe one can begin to see a pattern form in his strafe. But how can you know what someone’s going to do at the start of their strafe sequence? Have you gone up against people who do the exact same moves to start their strafe sequences every single time? Because, in my opinion, that would be someone who has a poor strafe.

Prediction is not the same thing as knowledge, at least not in the context of predicting the behavior of other players. You’re absolutely right, you will never know what the other player will do, but gaining absolute knowledge is not the goal of prediction here. Predicting the moves of other players, in any game, is not about eliminating uncertanty, but merely about mnimizing it. You’re trying to guess the opponent’s next move based on the current state of the game and their past actions. How good you are depends on how well you perform compared to the baseline of blind guessing.

So, when it comes to strafing, let’s consider the encounter from the start. I conjecture that most players have a slight preference to start their strafe to one direction over the other. The proximity of walls and other obstacles may considerably impact their decision (e.g. if they’re right next to a wall on the right, they will almost certainly strafe to the left). Where you appear to be aiming might influence which direction they will strafe. There are multiple factors which in principle allow you to predict the direction of their first strafe at higher than 50% accuracy. You’re probably not going to be aware of their slight personal preference, but you do see how close to a wall they are standing, and that’ll instantly give you some confidence. So, even during the first move, there’s something to predict.

If the opponent then starts running to the right, they will turn back to the left eventually. When they turn again depends on how much space they have. You can also be pretty sure that they’re probably not going to turn back instantly, nor will they run in the same direction for very long. They might also have some preferred strafing cycle, and experience from previous encounters might clue you in the approximate time they will turn.

What about when they crouch at the apex of their strafe? Here you’re likely not going to predict the crouch better than anyone, unless this player has a really bad habit of crouching at the first turn. Strafing is the first action to which I think the response is entirely reactionary. That is, there is nothing about the past actions of the player or the environment to suggest that they might crouch at that exact moment. Of course, while being significantly less predictable than running left and right, crouching slows down your speed, and is therefore a risky move, because it’s easy to react to if it takes too long.

Jumping is another move that can be done which, I would argue, you can’t predict really predict. You can very confidently predict many scenarios where the opponent will not jump, such that when they’re right in the open, because jumping puts a player on a completely predetermined trajectory for such a long time. However, the clues that they might jump are scarce. Perhaps they will jump behind a corner, where the rest of their trajectory is blocked from your view, but there’s not a strong reason for you to expect them to do it.

The same, of course, applies to a thrust. At no point is there a strong reason to expect that the opponent will thrust. The response to a thrust is therefore very much reactionary, unlike the response to the basic left to right movement in normal strafing. The response to crouching and jumping is also reactionary, however. But crouching and jumping have a very strong downside to them if not used correctly. Due to the fast speed of the Thruster Pack, there is no such significant downside to thrusting as there is to crouching and jumping, and therefore even less skilled players can make reasonably effective use of the Thruster Pack without significant danger.

160

> 2533274825830455;159:
> So, when it comes to strafing, let’s consider the encounter from the start. I conjecture that most players have a slight preference to start their strafe to one direction over the other. The proximity of walls and other obstacles may considerably impact their decision (e.g. if they’re right next to a wall on the right, they will almost certainly strafe to the left). Where you appear to be aiming might influence which direction they will strafe. There are multiple factors which in principle allow you to predict the direction of their first strafe at higher than 50% accuracy. You’re probably not going to be aware of their slight personal preference, but you do see how close to a wall they are standing, and that’ll instantly give you some confidence. So, even during the first move, there’s something to predict.

Absolutely, I agree. Does this same logic not apply to thrust, though?

CYBERSPYKE seems to think it’s harder to predict the direction of an opponent’s thrust than that of an opponent’s strafe. But wouldn’t what you just said here apply to thrust as well? Even more so I imagine since if you’re close enough to a wall, you could thrust directly into it, shortening the ground you cover and escaping your opponent’s aim by a lesser margin (which is inefficient).

> 2533274825830455;159:
> The same, of course, applies to a thrust. At no point is there a strong reason to expect that the opponent will thrust. The response to a thrust is therefore very much reactionary, unlike the response to the basic left to right movement in normal strafing. The response to crouching and jumping is also reactionary, however. But crouching and jumping have a very strong downside to them if not used correctly. Due to the fast speed of the Thruster Pack, there is no such significant downside to thrusting as there is to crouching and jumping, and therefore even less skilled players can make reasonably effective use of the Thruster Pack without significant danger.

The bolded statement is what I’m talking about. I don’t know how you can believe that.

  • When you catch an opponent off guard and get a shot or two in him, you can guess that he’ll probably thrust right off the bat because, along with it just being a common panicked reflex, he’ll want to throw off your aim as much as possible so he can then try and level the playing field by getting shots into you while you’re disoriented. - If you and your opponent are in an even 1v1, lowering each other’s shields at the same rate, you can guess he won’t thrust until you’re both one shot so as to make it harder for you to land the final headshot. - Like I said, thrusting is a common panicked reflex, so any time you can sense your opponent might be starting to panic (such as when he starts missing shots while you start hitting yours) you can guess he’s going to thrust.And when you’re mid-thrust, you can’t shoot the enemy but he can still shoot you. Sounds like a downside to me.
161

> 2533274804424245;160:
> CYBERSPYKE seems to think it’s harder to predict the direction of an opponent’s thrust than that of an opponent’s strafe. But wouldn’t what you just said here apply to thrust as well? Even more so I imagine since if you’re close enough to a wall, you could thrust directly into it, shortening the ground you cover and escaping your opponent’s aim by a lesser margin (which is inefficient).

That is true.

> 2533274804424245;160:
> > 2533274825830455;159:
> > The same, of course, applies to a thrust. At no point is there a strong reason to expect that the opponent will thrust. The response to a thrust is therefore very much reactionary, unlike the response to the basic left to right movement in normal strafing. The response to crouching and jumping is also reactionary, however. But crouching and jumping have a very strong downside to them if not used correctly. Due to the fast speed of the Thruster Pack, there is no such significant downside to thrusting as there is to crouching and jumping, and therefore even less skilled players can make reasonably effective use of the Thruster Pack without significant danger.
>
> The bolded statement is what I’m talking about. I don’t know how you can believe that.
>
>
> - When you catch an opponent off guard and get a shot or two in him, you can guess that he’ll probably thrust right off the bat because, along with it just being a common panicked reflex, he’ll want to throw off your aim as much as possible so he can then try and level the playing field by getting shots into you while you’re disoriented. - If you and your opponent are in an even 1v1, lowering each other’s shields at the same rate, you can guess he won’t thrust until you’re both one shot so as to make it harder for you to land the final headshot. - Like I said, thrusting is a common panicked reflex, so any time you can sense your opponent might be starting to panic (such as when he starts missing shots while you start hitting yours) you can guess he’s going to thrust.And when you’re mid-thrust, you can’t shoot the enemy but he can still shoot you. Sounds like a downside to me.

You’re right. I evidently didn’t spend enough time thinking about that point while writing.